On Friday, November 5, 2004, 9:27:41 PM, L. wrote:
LDB> On Friday 2004-11-05 17:11 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> >> Such a document is invalid (and therefore non-conformant) since it
>> >> doesn't meet the validity constraint that the DOCTYPE declaration match
>> >> the name of the root element [1], since there is no root element.
>> >> (I'm not sure whether that's the point you were trying to make. But it
>> >> was the reason I cited that section.)
>>
>> RB> I don't think that DTD validity is the best way to phrase this either.
>>
>> Nor do I, but David seems to have missed the algorithm in the cited
>> reference and thus seems to believe that DTD validity is being applied
>> to the document as a whole rather than the extracted svg fragment.
LDB> No, I don't think I did.
LDB> My point was that if there are no elements in the SVG namespace, then
LDB> the extracted svg fragment is empty, according to [2]. DTD validity
LDB> can't be applied to a document with no elements in it (which actually
LDB> isn't even well-formed).
In which case it is not a conforming SVG fragment, so that works.
LDB> -David
LDB> [2]
LDB> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group